POLITICAL COLUMN

Text Size

John Edwards happens to believe he can do better with rural, white, downscale voters than either Obama or Hillary can.
AP Photo

Which of these statements are racist? Which are sexist? Or which are merely political?

“We can’t make John black; we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars,” says Elizabeth Edwards.

“I guarantee you African-American turnout if I’m the nominee goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum,” says Barack Obama.

“I know there are people who either say or wonder, ‘Would we ever elect a woman president?’ And you know, I don’t think we’ll know until we try,” says Hillary Clinton.

Generally speaking, most of us think it is OK to make appeals for votes based on race or sex — just as long as you are in a minority group or are a woman.

But you can’t raise fears based on race or sex. You are not supposed to say, “Hey, a black man cannot win the presidency in 2008. A woman cannot win the presidency in 2008.”

And you can’t, of course, say: “Vote for me because I am white” or “Vote for me because I am a man.”

This creates a dilemma for John Edwards, who, as his wife reminds us, is a white male. (Not a group accustomed to being disadvantaged.)

John Edwards happens to believe he can do better with rural, white, downscale voters than either Obama or Hillary can.

But it is tough for Edwards to come out and actually say that. So maybe he uses code instead.

For example, he says: “If you’re running in a tough congressional district, … you gotta ask yourself, would you rather have Sen. Obama at the top of the ticket to help, Sen. Clinton at the top of the ticket to help or John Edwards at the top of the ticket to help?”

“Your instincts will tell you the right answer,” Edwards says.

ABC’s Jake Tapper, writing in his blog Political Punch, believes Edwards has been skating close to the edge lately.

Tapper quotes passages in which Edwards claims he can make “more of a connection” than Obama or Hillary can with “middle-of-the-road voters.”

“Just picture in your head each of us,” Edwards says.

Tapper writes: “For weeks, I’ve rejected the notion that Edwards is making this appeal on anything other than cultural values, his Southern twang and roots, … but that ‘picture in your head’ clause is interesting.”

Even more interesting is the fact that Edwards is not really more “middle of the road” politically than Obama or Clinton. So is Edwards subtly saying he is able to make “more of a connection” to middle-of-the-road voters because he is white and a man instead of black or a woman?

probably being a white male is the only thing Edwards would have going for him. I would vote for him when Hell freezes over.

Two problems with this post,

With global warming at a catostrophic rate, how could Hell possibly freeze? You capitalized "Hell" implying that it is a real place, so I guess Heaven is real to. (Unless of course you are referring to that small town in Michigan)

This is really revealing. It is reality, but it is on the "Democratic Party" side of the aisle. You don't see this coming from Republicans. This, more than anything else, shows that the Democratic Party is more concerned about race and gender, and are more racist and sexist, than Republicans. And you know without any doubt whatsoever, that this will play out again in the actual campaign after the primaries are over. The Dems will make race and gender issues a central theme. We can only hope the public at large catches on to this.A series of ads with videos of these people saying this stuff would be very effective in "outing" Dems. IMHO

There's nothing "codified" or politically incorrect in saying explicitly what campaigns' polls tend to show-- that Hillary's "high negatives" translate into an inability to get at least 50% of the popular vote, and that O's inexperience and race put his numbers even lower. Why would the Dems insist on running a very likely loser just for the sake of haivng a woman or black on the ticket as an historical "first"?

Which of the 3 candidates are right? Probably Obama is right that his nomination would motivate a much higher African American turn-out and with the shaky candidate the Republicans are likely to have this year, a very large African American turn-out could flip a Southern state or two. Clinton's pollster says she will take 7% of Republican women but another pollster says she will lose 9% of Democratic women. In the end, maybe those Republican women won't vote for her because of tax increase concerns. But the 9% of Democratic women are probably opposed to her out of deep, sincere antipathy to her as a person. I know I am. The voters John Edwards is saying he can bring in are probably concerned with illegal immigration more than any other issue but Edwards is not on their side on that one. I think Edwards would be wary of the questions he'd get from those voters.

Oh heck ya'll...Keg Leg Hillary's got the whole socialist (world wide) party, funded by Move On, back'n her...no democrat's gonna beat her...they are so eat up with feel good politics they don't know a pinko when they're slaped up side the head with one. It'll take the Repubs to give her a good ol American Red, White and Blue...whoop'n in Nov. '08.

The GOP front runner can't get enough of wearing dresses. Half of your male office holders are pervs and closet queens. Republicans hate family values. Why else would they attack a good family man like Edwards who married his college sweethart and has had 4 great kids. Edwards is a real man. Any one who questions that obviously has problems with their own manhood.

When the first thing that someone says about Edwards has to do with bikini wax and urinals, I know that what we've got is one of those Larry Craig/ Patrick McHenry wide stance republicans. Sorry but John is hetero.